You are correct that the polygraph shows what we believe and not necessarily the truth.

If a test were ever given to my wife and I, those who see two people believing that the same telepathic experience happened to them, would have to decide for themselves if they want to believe the positive test or not.

I would entirely believe the positive test - that the two of you both believed something had happened to you. But that would not be proof in the slightest of telepathy, for exactly the reasons I gave.

Put me on a polygraph. I will state that the two of you did NOT experience telepathy. And the polygraph will confirm my statement. But that would not be evidence of my position either.

Frankly, mentioning polygraph tests in the first place makes me raise an eyebrow, because I usually see them touted by people who rely on the general public equating belief in a statement, with obejective existence of the statement's assertion. Quite different things.

“Sorry - in the first sentence you appear to say it IS reproducible - but in the second you say that you have been unable to?”

I have been unable to to date but that does not mean it will never happen again if the conditions get duplicated again. I imagine it is the same situation for all of us. We can all do it as far as I know.

OR, NOBODY can do it (as far as you know), and what happened to you were two freak occurrences that have never, and will never, be replicated, explainable by quantum blips in the universe. As I said elsewhere, you've jumped from "something weird happened to two people for a split second" to everyone being capable of telepathy in the right circumstances and everyone having mind shiled to protect them from the asserted mass-mind that you claim exists.

“(something fairly commonplace and eminently repeatable)”You say I imply this but I said that it is fairly rare as you confirmed.

Rare? Hardly. "I was ….. chastising myself and sort of wishing that I had the more emotional side of my wife so that I could put more emotion in the work I was doing" That's not rare - though maybe it is for you. Simply from my own experience, it’s a thought I've had myself a few times. From conversations and my professional experience dealing with people it is hardly an uncommon wish. With 6 billion people in the world, it may be "rare" in that only maybe 100,000 people thought it today, but it's by no means an infrequent thought.

So unless there is a whole lot more information you haven't previously shared, there is nothing you were doing that would not be regularly replicated all round the world. So what you need to do, if your theory of global telepathy is to hold water, is to explain why the results you experienced are so apparently unique.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that telepathy is absolutely real. Rare, but real. And painful.

What good is that information? When it comes to forming an overall world view? If telepathy plays only the tiniest part of our day to day lives, if that much, cannot we simply say that it appears that sometimes human minds can connect, but that doesn't matter because it doesn't accomplish diddly? Cannot you say, at this point in human learning, where most consider telepathy to be imagined, that it doesn't really matter because it is of no use anyway, and simply accept that if it is real, people will eventually find out. And still not use it.

That you were shocked by the events you describe could be mildly interesting at this point in human development. That, to you, the best explanation, that of telepathy, is now less of a mystery doesn't mean that it is also of an ultimate importance. At best, it is like discovering a DeWalt battery powered drill in a cave, 25,000 years ago. The lack of screws would have meant it was of no value. Plus recharging would be a bitch.

It sounds like you're too impressed by something that is of otherwise little use. Maybe 500 years from now telepathy will have been proven. Right now it isn't, and most of us doubt that it exists. So even if it is real, by your own admission it appears to be too rare and painful to use anyway, maybe you should just shrug your shoulders after saying "wow" and concentrate you energies on more well grounded endeavors.

No argument and I do.

As to the importance or not of telepathy, I think it is or will be important.

Think biofeedback. A proven technique. Now add that noetic science thinks that matter is created or manipulated by the brain when doing telepathy. If science could effectively get biofeedback and telepathy together, we could do chemo therapy without drugs by just using the mind to go out, eh, into ourselves and kill the undesirable elements.

You are correct that the polygraph shows what we believe and not necessarily the truth.

If a test were ever given to my wife and I, those who see two people believing that the same telepathic experience happened to them, would have to decide for themselves if they want to believe the positive test or not.

I would entirely believe the positive test - that the two of you both believed something had happened to you. But that would not be proof in the slightest of telepathy, for exactly the reasons I gave.

Put me on a polygraph. I will state that the two of you did NOT experience telepathy. And the polygraph will confirm my statement. But that would not be evidence of my position either.

Frankly, mentioning polygraph tests in the first place makes me raise an eyebrow, because I usually see them touted by people who rely on the general public equating belief in a statement, with obejective existence of the statement's assertion. Quite different things.

“Sorry - in the first sentence you appear to say it IS reproducible - but in the second you say that you have been unable to?”

I have been unable to to date but that does not mean it will never happen again if the conditions get duplicated again. I imagine it is the same situation for all of us. We can all do it as far as I know.

OR, NOBODY can do it (as far as you know), and what happened to you were two freak occurrences that have never, and will never, be replicated, explainable by quantum blips in the universe. As I said elsewhere, you've jumped from "something weird happened to two people for a split second" to everyone being capable of telepathy in the right circumstances and everyone having mind shiled to protect them from the asserted mass-mind that you claim exists.

“(something fairly commonplace and eminently repeatable)”You say I imply this but I said that it is fairly rare as you confirmed.

Rare? Hardly. "I was ….. chastising myself and sort of wishing that I had the more emotional side of my wife so that I could put more emotion in the work I was doing" That's not rare - though maybe it is for you. Simply from my own experience, it’s a thought I've had myself a few times. From conversations and my professional experience dealing with people it is hardly an uncommon wish. With 6 billion people in the world, it may be "rare" in that only maybe 100,000 people thought it today, but it's by no means an infrequent thought.

So unless there is a whole lot more information you haven't previously shared, there is nothing you were doing that would not be regularly replicated all round the world. So what you need to do, if your theory of global telepathy is to hold water, is to explain why the results you experienced are so apparently unique.

I cannot.

"to everyone being capable of telepathy in the right circumstances and everyone having mind shield to protect them from the asserted mass-mind that you claim exists."

Not quite what I said or meant.

I do not claim that the shield exists. I was speculating as to how things might work, not how they work.

We would be protecting ourselves from each other, not the mass mind.

For all I know, we might not have shields at all but might be refraining ourselves do to the pleasure and pain as well as the lose of privacy.

For all I know, we might not have shields at all but might be refraining ourselves do to the pleasure and pain as well as the lose of privacy.

And as I said, for all you know, "telepathy" is a phenomenon that has and will only ever happen twice in the histiry of the whole universe, that by chance both involved you.

Given that - do far as we know - it HAS only ever happened those two times, any kind of speculation about mind shields and telepathy for all and the great-group-consciousness can be no more than impassioned flights of fantasy.

That said, I've got no problems if that is what you want to believe. You're not hurting anyone, so far as I can see, and your beliefs make you happy. So I'll duck out now, unless and until you present anything even remotely verifiable.

GIa you could've been sending out a variety of signals - hence "pleasure and pain" - and received only by your wife.

This might have been one of the signals:

Quote

The communication of stress/anxiety between conspecifics through chemosensory signals has been documented in many vertebrates and invertebrates. Here, we investigate how chemosensory anxiety signals conveyed by the sweat of humans (N = 49) awaiting an academic examination are processed by the human brain, as compared to chemosensory control signals obtained from the same sweat donors in a sport condition. The chemosensory stimuli were pooled according to the donation condition and administered to 28 participants (14 males) synchronously to breathing via an olfactometer. The stimuli were perceived with a low intensity and accordingly only about half of the odor presentations were detected by the participants. The fMRI results (event-related design) show that chemosensory anxiety signals activate brain areas involved in the processing of social emotional stimuli (fusiform gyrus), and in the regulation of empathic feelings (insula, precuneus, cingulate cortex). In addition, neuronal activity within attentional (thalamus, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex) and emotional (cerebellum, vermis) control systems were observed. The chemosensory perception of human anxiety seems to automatically recruit empathy-related resources. Even though the participants could not attentively differentiate the chemosensory stimuli, emotional contagion seems to be effectively mediated by the olfactory system.

I can appreciate or see (slightly) where my wife could have been affected by my chemistry ....

It's good that your mind is open to other explanations. You've obviously experienced something very unusual and invested a lot of thought in researching the telepathy hypothesis - and you've also taken a bit of a risk in backing that explanation in front of a bunch of uber-skeptics here It takes a bit of courage to expose something like that, something that can attract ridicule. So I tend to believe you did indeed experience something profound that you couldn't explain any other way at the time.

.... but I also sensed her and that would mean that she too would have to have been sending.

It's also possible that it wasn't a two-way chemosignal communication - or not so at the start. The strong emotional thoughts you were having about your wife might have originated entirely in your own brain - triggering the pheromone release which she then reacted to.

Something happen to both of you, closely linked in time, that made a huge impact. So it's perfectly understandable that you would attribute it to the only available explanation of telepathy - a concept that every kid has heard about (even though it has never been demonstrated as fact.)

It's also possible that your recollections of the incidents has become shaped by the explanation attributed to them - that kind of memory alteration has been scientifically demonstrated to be extremely common (almost inevitable) and there is no reason to think any of us as immune it. It's not being delusional - just a brain mechanism whereby we overwrite the real original memory with a slightly modified memory based on new information and our own attempts to explain the memory. We are completely unaware when this happens to us - so there is no dishonesty involved - only a natural fallibility we all have. I saw a documentary recently where eyewitnesses to a crime change their recollections of crucial aspects of evidence after new ideas get deliberately 'planted' after the fact by the researchers. I'll look that up but meanwhile, if you are interested, you can start with this:

Quote

However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is volatile

I think that to be even further up the weird scale than my thinking it was telepathy.

Apply Occam's Razor

Chemosignals are a real phenomenon for which there is evidence - evidence that is easy to reproduce under controlled conditions. And the physiological mechanisms are known in many cases.

Telepathy has no known physical mechanisms. It is widely claimed (including by many professional 'psychics' ) but never unambiguously demonstrated, and never reproduced under controlled conditions. And to accommodate the difficulty of demonstrating it, we need to invent a second complexity - an unproven seemingly magical shield. So we have a mysterious function kept in check by a mysterious anti-function that sometimes fails

I have no argument to any of this and already stated in answer to your crime situation that yes the details are foggy and right out to lunch on the crime but they all knew that something had transpired.

The only thing I can say about my thinking and in my defence is that having a poor memory, I have always relied on logic trails and reason to keep myself consistent. It seems to work as I seldom have to recant and I tend not to lose any argument I get into. No. That is not a delusion.

Either way, it is a benign belief and that is why I do not lose sleep over whether or not there are other explanations. I have though on it as that is what I do a lot and will keep my opinion until it is proven, disproven or a better explanation comes out.

The only thing I can say about my thinking and in my defence is that having a poor memory, I have always relied on logic trails and reason to keep myself consistent. It seems to work as I seldom have to recant and I tend not to lose any argument I get into. No. That is not a delusion.

So I don't mean to imply that you're necessarily guilty of it, but seldom having to recant and a tendency to not lose arguments can be accomplished in several ways. Being correct is one of them. Being stubborn is another. Being ignorant is a third. Being disingenuous is a fourth.

Again, not saying that you're any of these. But claiming that one seldomly recants statements or rarely loses arguments doesn't necessarily imply that you apply rules of logic consistently or correctly.

But I want to point something out: you've posted the same Youtube link (that I can't view as Youtube is under the impression that I can't view it in the US) as an example of something that appears to be repeatable telepathy. Logically, if you can find only one example of some action that is purported to be repeatable, shouldn't your absolute, very first instinct be to ask 'why don't I see more examples'? Doesn't the existence of one and only one example of repeatable telepathy raise any red flags for you? Cold fusion comes to mind...

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Ah yes, the god-helmet guy.Attempts have been made to reproduce his findings, using the setup he describes in his publications. So far, no one has been able to reproduce the effect.Which either means that Dr Persinger has omitted a key element of the setup or that he is, accidentally or deliberatly, inserting the visual stimuli into the brains of his test subjects trough the magnetic field he is subjecting them to. I concur with jdawg70 ... a single 'hit' doesn't mean you've actually found anything.

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

The only thing I can say about my thinking and in my defence is that having a poor memory, I have always relied on logic trails and reason to keep myself consistent. It seems to work as I seldom have to recant and I tend not to lose any argument I get into. No. That is not a delusion.

So I don't mean to imply that you're necessarily guilty of it, but seldom having to recant and a tendency to not lose arguments can be accomplished in several ways. Being correct is one of them. Being stubborn is another. Being ignorant is a third. Being disingenuous is a fourth.

Again, not saying that you're any of these. But claiming that one seldomly recants statements or rarely loses arguments doesn't necessarily imply that you apply rules of logic consistently or correctly.

But I want to point something out: you've posted the same Youtube link (that I can't view as Youtube is under the impression that I can't view it in the US) as an example of something that appears to be repeatable telepathy. Logically, if you can find only one example of some action that is purported to be repeatable, shouldn't your absolute, very first instinct be to ask 'why don't I see more examples'? Doesn't the existence of one and only one example of repeatable telepathy raise any red flags for you? Cold fusion comes to mind...

Cold fusion has never had a repeatable proof of it's reality so we are comparing apples and oranges.

Whatever that Sudbury lab has produced will be looked at by the neurological community probably with Noetic science organizations and in a year or two they may develop something useful for us. It is too new at the moment and yes, other labs will also have to prove the theory.

I think, like most sciences and developments, it will depend on whether or not someone comes up with a way of making money off it. If we do not find a profit angle then the funding for research will be slow.

Ah yes, the god-helmet guy.Attempts have been made to reproduce his findings, using the setup he describes in his publications. So far, no one has been able to reproduce the effect.Which either means that Dr Persinger has omitted a key element of the setup or that he is, accidentally or deliberatly, inserting the visual stimuli into the brains of his test subjects trough the magnetic field he is subjecting them to. I concur with jdawg70 ... a single 'hit' doesn't mean you've actually found anything.

I agree.

I don't know if you have read many reports of experiments in telepathy. Many say that it somehow depends on the beliefs of the technicians doing the experiment.

I used to think that a crock of shit to explain away non-replication but now with quantum physics saying what they are, it muddies the water. I think much will happen in the next few years that will surprise us.

Believing and knowing that telepathy is real opens me more to possible other truths that we presently have not proven. The trick is to not open my mind so much that garbage ends up filling it.

Cold fusion has never had a repeatable proof of it's reality so we are comparing apples and oranges.

But...my point is that this telepathy business seems to also not have any repeatable proof. Or, if it does, I'm not aware of it. Do you have links or citations to publications for additional independent studies of some kind? Until then...we're comparing apples to apples here.

Quote

Whatever that Sudbury lab has produced will be looked at by the neurological community probably with Noetic science organizations and in a year or two they may develop something useful for us. It is too new at the moment and yes, other labs will also have to prove the theory.

I think, like most sciences and developments, it will depend on whether or not someone comes up with a way of making money off it. If we do not find a profit angle then the funding for research will be slow.

The only reason people like getting lots of money is because that money gets them control. There are few superpowers out there better suited to controlling others than being able to read another's mind and/or telepathically influence it.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I don't know if you have read many reports of experiments in telepathy. Many say that it somehow depends on the beliefs of the technicians doing the experiment.

I used to think that a crock of shit to explain away non-replication but now with quantum physics saying what they are, it muddies the water. I think much will happen in the next few years that will surprise us.

Believing and knowing that telepathy is real opens me more to possible other truths that we presently have not proven. The trick is to not open my mind so much that garbage ends up filling it.

RegardsDL

In another thread on a different topic, I remember you saying once that I sounded like a Christian with a particular post.

Also, what does quantum physics have to do with any of this right now?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Cold fusion has never had a repeatable proof of it's reality so we are comparing apples and oranges.

But...my point is that this telepathy business seems to also not have any repeatable proof. Or, if it does, I'm not aware of it. Do you have links or citations to publications for additional independent studies of some kind? Until then...we're comparing apples to apples here.

Quote

Whatever that Sudbury lab has produced will be looked at by the neurological community probably with Noetic science organizations and in a year or two they may develop something useful for us. It is too new at the moment and yes, other labs will also have to prove the theory.

I think, like most sciences and developments, it will depend on whether or not someone comes up with a way of making money off it. If we do not find a profit angle then the funding for research will be slow.

The only reason people like getting lots of money is because that money gets them control. There are few superpowers out there better suited to controlling others than being able to read another's mind and/or telepathically influence it.

Knowing someone's thoughts is not controlling that person.

As to repeatability. That Sudbury scientists claims he has. He would be the one to question.

As to other claims of telepathy, Google it and read many testimonials and about many experiments that have been good enough to keep many looking for many years now. I gave what I had.

But knowing someone's thoughts would make it pretty easy-peasy to manipulate that someone.

Quote

As to repeatability. That Sudbury scientists claims he has. He would be the one to question.

Why do you believe that claim exactly? I'm questioning why it is that you believe the Sudbury claim that they have a repeatable phenomenon.

Quote

As to other claims of telepathy, Google it and read many testimonials and about many experiments that have been good enough to keep many looking for many years now. I gave what I had.

The same can be said for the divinity of Jesus, the alive-ness of Elvis, the existence of The Loch Ness Monster, the Moon landing hoax, and the flatness of the Earth. Google is great, but it's also a treasure trove of unverifiable bulls**t (seeing as how the Internet is, frankly, chalk full of unverifiable bulls**t). That's why it's nice to have a collection of peer-reviewed, repeated experimentation; helps to sift through it all.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I don't know if you have read many reports of experiments in telepathy. Many say that it somehow depends on the beliefs of the technicians doing the experiment.

I used to think that a crock of shit to explain away non-replication but now with quantum physics saying what they are, it muddies the water. I think much will happen in the next few years that will surprise us.

Believing and knowing that telepathy is real opens me more to possible other truths that we presently have not proven. The trick is to not open my mind so much that garbage ends up filling it.

RegardsDL

In another thread on a different topic, I remember you saying once that I sounded like a Christian with a particular post.

Also, what does quantum physics have to do with any of this right now?

I picked up that clip that you could not view from another source.

Please see if you can load it then you will know as much as I do right from the experts.

But knowing someone's thoughts would make it pretty easy-peasy to manipulate that someone.

Quote

As to repeatability. That Sudbury scientists claims he has. He would be the one to question.

Why do you believe that claim exactly? I'm questioning why it is that you believe the Sudbury claim that they have a repeatable phenomenon.

Quote

As to other claims of telepathy, Google it and read many testimonials and about many experiments that have been good enough to keep many looking for many years now. I gave what I had.

The same can be said for the divinity of Jesus, the alive-ness of Elvis, the existence of The Loch Ness Monster, the Moon landing hoax, and the flatness of the Earth. Google is great, but it's also a treasure trove of unverifiable bulls**t (seeing as how the Internet is, frankly, chalk full of unverifiable bulls**t). That's why it's nice to have a collection of peer-reviewed, repeated experimentation; helps to sift through it all.

There is nothing repeatable or verifiable for claims of Jesus but are for what we are talking about here.

When scientists make public statements they are under close scrutiny. I believe that Sudbury scientist because his career is on the line if he fudged any data and if his experiment cannot be replicated using his methods by other scientists.

There is nothing repeatable or verifiable for claims of Jesus but are for what we are talking about here.

When scientists make public statements they are under close scrutiny. I believe that Sudbury scientist because his career is on the line if he fudged any data and if his experiment cannot be replicated using his methods by other scientists.

They have peer revue. Theologians have nothing like it.

And perhaps the video will answer the following, but I thought I'd ask them now while I'm thinking about them:1) There are repeatable or verifiable claims for what we're talking about? And by repeatable, I mean experiments that have actually been independently repeated. And again, haven't watched the video yet so I may be speaking out of turn here, but I would have expected your claim here to be followed by some examples (peer reviewed journals, other instances of these tests being repeated and verified) of repeatability.2) Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann also made public statements, and I suspect their careers were also on the line. I don't think they intentionally fudged their data, but they did, innocuously or otherwise, screw up their experiment so the claims they made that they thought were true turned out to be false, revealed by attempted replication of their experiment and results. Basically, I'm sure the Sudbury scientist wants to be honest and wants to be correct, but that's hardly a reason to accept that his claims are true, are they?3) If there actually is peer review, please trot it out. Don't just say that it's been peer reviewed; back it up. (again, same caveat about me not having watched the video apply here. But honestly, you've watched the video, and if it does have listing of peer reviewed material or replication of experiments by others, you could always just list them out here for the benefit of everyone, including yourself)

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."